Come on guys, that writer is clearly a prick. Look at his victim writing, how smug he was when he approached Richard, and how he specifically tried to start something. He clearly would never asked that if he didn't know that Richard's career would be ended if he had done something.

Honestly, when Richard said "next question" the writer should have moved on, as Seymour obviously didn't like the question, and wasn't going elaborate any further. Seymour then telling the writer he no longer wanted to talk to him, after the writer continued on with the same question is understandable.

Seymour's attitude toward this writer seems a little harsh, but sometimes the written word doesn't tell the whole story. The writer might have asked part of his question in a sarcastic manner, and Seymour might have said "get out of here" in a slightly joking manner the first time around. All I know is that journalist might have saved the interview, if he simply moved on from that line of question.

Seymour got a penalty for yanking a players hair. This is a stupid penalty. If your going to run ariound on the field with your hair flowing out from under your helmet, then you run the risk of having it yanked, intentional or not. Your hair should be considered part of the uniform. If you want to make a "fashion statement" with having long flowing locks, then it is your own problem if it gets pulled. You don't want your hair pulled, then put it up under the helmet, wear a hairnet, or better yet, go get a damn haircut.

That writer is a douche bag. You sit there, almost like hitting the dog in the face constantly, and now you're going to write a piece of how he bit you back? Hell, he didn't even quite do that, rather he barked back. That's pretty weak. I don't know anyone that would have acted any different. It could've been worse, Seymour could have had an actual meltdown. Is it that rude to simply say, "no comment"?

Seymour got a penalty for yanking a players hair. This is a stupid penalty. If your going to run ariound on the field with your hair flowing out from under your helmet, then you run the risk of having it yanked, intentional or not. Your hair should be considered part of the uniform. If you want to make a "fashion statement" with having long flowing locks, then it is your own problem if it gets pulled. You don't want your hair pulled, then put it up under the helmet, wear a hairnet, or better yet, go get a damn haircut.

Click to expand...

On one hand, Seymour pulled Clady's hair after the play was dead, so he deserved the penalty;

On the other hand, I have absolutely no problem with one player pulling another player's hair in order to make a tackle. In that case, hair should be considered part of the uniform; and as long as the hair isn't pulled in such a way as to violate the anti-horse-collar-tackling rule, then pull away, I say.

If an offensive lineman has hair hanging out the bottom of his helmet, every D line guy going against him should go for that hair and pull it out by the roots. Don't hold it for a long time, just yank hard.

It may sound dirty, but when I played college ball, defensive players dragged me down by the jersey, horsecollar, wrist bands, shoelaces, facemasks and earholes. And I do not remember seeing much yellow laundry tossed their way. If the hair is hanging out the helmet, it is fair game.

Technically there is no penalty for hair pulling, it is actually considered "part of the uniform" so it would be legal to say tackle Palomalu buy his hair (someone did last year). What Seymour got bagged for is unnecessary roughness described by pulling the guy's hair. I can only hope that this sours the entire Raider organization on Seymour and they decide not to bring him back for their crucial 2010 season (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

Seymour is in a tough spot here, he is going to lose more games this year than he has ever lost in his whole career (well that might be a bit of exageration, but not much). 9 season with the Pats preceeded by a run at UGA, Seymour has not seen many losing seasons, especially ones, that were hopeless from the get-go.

The Raiders are an absolute mess, I only hope that they go on and win enough games this year to make next year's schedule harder.

Gotta hope that Sey sours on Oak so our 2010 pick is enhanced. As to the exchange, I read it as the writer baiting Sey about a play that Sey isn't proud of. Were I Seymour I might have said GFY, not my best decision, or no comment depending on how pissed I was at the time. Writer is making it all about him. Probably a complete geek like Metaparel.